FRA reps meeting (on the 13th Oct 207)

can one of the hydraulics guys please explain about the accumulators mentioned in the proposed rules change?

Alan, on the agenda is a request to allow the use of presurised suction pumps using an acumulator or similar device. It is certainly something that needs to be discussed with event organisers and roboteers alike.

Why is everybody using the 2% that is meant for measuring-faults of the scale(s)? Dangerous!

(Message edited by mjm on October 09, 2007)

Sam Smitch Requist about pre-pressurised oil tanks stem from experience. Every oil storage that doesnt have an free exit/inlet for atmospheric air will be pressurised somewere in the cyclus. In theory that could be seen as an accumulator, and that isnt allowed in the rules.

The main concern about this, according to me, is that sticklers for the rules would use this to disqualify about any hydraulic user.
As most use a accumulator bladder or simular.

Every time there is any rule change it causes problems, people think that it will affect them adversely, and the problems and expense this will cost, I would suggest firstly we should consider any rule change on the basis of how it will benefit the robot movement as a whole in the future.
Then deal with the logistics and costs after that, we are by definition engineers and inventors we can adapt. If the rule change for weight and Co2 measurement are harmonised through out the world this would eventually lead to a more stable rule structure with less time wasted with arguments like this in the future.
This harmonisation could take place over a couple of years giving time for Roboteers to modify or rebuild there robots as required with the expense spread over a longer period of time, My robot gets re-built almost every meeting!!!! It€™s that bad. It was conceived as a spinner but circumstances regarding safety. Made an effective rule change making my robot unviable to run in the UK. I had to adapt my robot, I would just add I agree with this rule change I would not be able to cope with the guilt of having my machine kill or injure.
I believe rules are there for two main reasons
1/ Safety to ensure risk of injury to anyone is reduced to an absolute minimum.
2/ Fairness rules offer a structure that every one understands and follows. It€™s a level playing field; if Co2 is not considered in the weight calculation, then could the hydraulic boys have a case to not include the hydraulic fluid in their machines?

Hydraulic fluids are not consumed. CO² is. Use the CO² and you lose 2 kilos. The weight advantage lasts only as long as your store of flips. After that your robot becomes a weaponless and 2 kilos lighter bumpin car.

My 2 cents... why meddle with a format that works ?
For the featherweights the discussion is valid... a kilo gained counts for a LOT when you talk about 12 kilos. But a heavyweight ? It shrugs at the 2 kilos. The only reason why I object to extending the rule towards heavyweights is because a number of already very good and reliable robots will get into trouble then, already having been forced recently to scale down, this time a rules change might herald their demise.

Tough As Nails is a good example of this. Engineered quasi perfectly to weigh 100 kilos but how will Jeroen be able to shave off 2 kilos ? AGAIN ? Is he being punished for something or what ?

Well for starters unless something goes horribly wrong, the hydraulic robots do not loose there hydraulic fluids and stay 100kg, co2 machines loose weight as the fight goes on.

I do not think a weight change in heavies will add to safety. I do think however that if you do want to level the playing field for feathers to 13,6kg, you should also use 100kg for heavies including gas. RFL ruling for one, means also RFL ruling for the rest of the weight classes.

If this means that our Pneumatic rules go in effect with the RFL, it means the playing field is level all over te world. And that is in the end the best for all of us.

But that would also mean that A123 cells should be allowed in all weight classes, since they are already allowed all over the world except the FRA. It will give the heavies a chance to drop down in weight more easily without having to make fundamental changes to the design of the robot.

Why include all excisting HW robots in this? It is possible to let them run to old rules, like it is done in car racing where old models run in the same race as new models.
The old ones will disappear faster then we can adopt new rules, anyway.

then could the hydraulic boys have a case to not include the hydraulic fluid in their machines
I was joking!!

Craig, its rather simple and light to enlarge the pressureless oiltank to 10L of oil, nothing done easely in the CO2 using robots, as the storage tank is prohibitively heavy.

Until recently I was under the impression that the FRA had a democratic process, were your reps and boardmembers give information openly and freely to the members so they know what is going on and what is discussed.
You know, like any decent democratic organisation would do.

Now aside from some things that happened in the past, where the truth is always somewhere in the middle, I was still convinced of the usefullnes of the FRA, and still promoted the idea of the FRA. Now imagine my surprise when Dave Lang posted this agenda for the next reps meeting, and to find topics of discussion that have never even been discussed at events or AGM, and even worse, not being disclosed to members. Even worse, Dave got some serious flack about posting said agenda, as if members are not supposed to know about this.

Anyone who has read this agenda will agree these topics should NOT be decided upon without proper consult with the FRA members. No matter wether you are in favor or against the proposed rule changes, everyone should be heard in this, and not just be discussed by a handfull of people.

I for one am thankful to Dave for posting the agenda, so we at least could see it in advance, and could have a in my opinion healthy discussion on the consequences of said proposals.

But when i woke up yesterday morning and did my rounds of the various robot related fora, I came accross this line at robotforum.co.uk:

quote:

Sorry, but this board is currently disabled due to legal action being threatened by certain individuals.

This is just wrong. Not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. This should NEVER happen to a person who has the best intentions with the sport and the FRA members. If this is the way a person is treated as a FRA rep who did what the FRA should have done itself, then I say the FRA is no longer forfilling its aims as protrayed on the very first page of the FRA website.

quote:

-Promotion and education of all things to do with robots, of all weights, shapes and sizes -To provide consistency with regard to open event safety, arenas and robot build rules.
-To centralise communications, in effect be a library of contacts and to promote the sport.
-To encourage the set up of regional meeting clubs, that are either part of the FRA or affiliated to the FRA.
-To endeavour to work with other countries associations for the betterment of our sport.
-To represent roboteer interests in negotiations with other bodies.
-To generally make the roboteers lot a better one.

If someone is wondering why i waited so long to post this, that is

a: because it is never a good idea to start posting when your emotions flare up, so I usually put in a cooldown period.

b: I wanted to check with a moderator my posting is not in violation of the forum rules.

Bravo, Bravo. Bravo.

now to find a new name for it all.

im annoyed that that forum has been disabled, it is a good forum. i hope it is not related to anything here, i dont know about anyone else but i havent been enjoying it here lately.

I was surprised to find the other forum was disabled and the reason was possible legal action,
I would ask that all people concerned with this, to spend time cooling down, and considering the good of the whole roboting community.
Please try not to consider any dissention or disagreement as a personal attack, there are problems, lets work through them together with the good of the whole robot community in the for front of all our minds.

I totally agree with that Craig.

It has been brought to my attention that I havent got the full picture. This may be true (99% sure I dont have the full picture), but still that has something to do with the secrecy that is my grievence in the first place.

I advocate openess in organisations like the FRA to all its members, where I do understand that not everything should be discussed on a public forum.

But still things that are of interest of all members, like proposed rulechanges, or issues pending, must be communicated to all its members in a timely fashion. Wether you use this forum, or a closed of section of this forum only accessable by paying FRA members, or use the reps to convey the messages, or email, or regular mail, its all the same to me. But members have a right to know these things in advance so we have a chance to voice our opinions and come up with our own possible solutions in time.

I dont know whats going on here, but its almost always better to talk. Lets not have a bust up, I was just starting to enjoy myself.

Simon

Havent a clue whats happening but Ill say all the (REMOVED WORD) is a good reason why Ive cut back my participation in the sport. Openness is clearly an evil the FRA (the FRA being such a generic term these days) wishes to disassociate itself with.

Good luck with surviving the sport.

(Message edited by big_nipper on October 14, 2007)

I second what Ewan has said.

€œThis is just wrong. Not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. This should NEVER happen to a person who has the best intentions with the sport and the FRA members. If this is the way a person is treated as a FRA rep who did what the FRA should have done itself, then I say the FRA is no longer forfilling its aims as protrayed on the very first page of the FRA website.€

The Dave Lang website was created because of a misconception that this forum is censored, which it is not.

The people in the main that use this site use it correctly, after all it is one of the biggest websites for roboteering in the world. 200,000 visits in July, alone.

This website has all sorts of people visit, and use it, including minors etc and should be used with this in mind.

The Dave Lang website was an area where so called free speech was practised without regard for the people they were writing about or whether the content was true and accurate.

A public website is like a news paper, if you print libellous or defamatory content the publisher will have lawyers on his back.

Although Dave has done nothing wrong himself, he is finding out that he is personally responsible for the content that others write.

There is UK case law for this situation.

I believe that Dave may have taken the view that it was easier to close the site than to censor the written content, ie do the exact opposite of why the site was set up for in the first place.

As folk have now migrated to a facebook site, this is now the free speech area.
From what I hear today the content of the facebook forum is not accurate in some posts.

With regard to the FRA paperwork that was posted on the Dave Lang site he was told to remove it for the following reasons.

AGM minutes had not been agreed by the FRA governing body.

The 17th FRA agenda had named individuals contained in its text and therefore the FRA itself could have been liable under the data protection act.

Dave being a new member of the FRA governing body did not understand this and posted them.

Dave did not take up the offer of advice as to the way the FRA works as he became a new governing body member.

After three apologies to the governing body, and two resignations and that is before he ever got to his first FRA meeting, it is a real disappointment as he is a real roboteer.

Let me get this straight: The agenda was not published because of the names it contains?

Well here is a weird suggestion for version 18: publish them without names.

misconception that this forum is censored - including minors etc and should be used with this in mind

You cant have it two ways Andy, of course it is censored and membership is regulated. The degree of censorship is highly questionable though. I would undoubtedly get banned if I spoke my mind, perhaps even sued if you had your way. Is this good for the sports image? No siree

Reading in the data protection act:

Sensitive personal data
In this Act €œsensitive personal data€ means personal data consisting of information as to€”

(a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b) his political opinions,
(c) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d) whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e) his physical or mental health or condition,
(f) his sexual life,
(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

I dont think this will be a problem in an agenda.

(Message edited by leorcc on October 12, 2007)

I see politicians at work.

The AGM agenda was not the correct version. So when was a correct version to be known? Tomorrow afternoon? So the people who are to be represented by the Elected FRA reprensatives cant put their view in. So the reps have to divine the wishes of the people they represent.

The 17th FRA agenda had named individuals contained in its text and therefore the FRA itself could have been liable under the data protection act.
Depends. Does any of the members mentioned in that document a problem with that fact? Maybe certain individuals that didnt make the proposals in those words and could get annoyed by the misinterpretation? Or people mentioned that didnt even proposed anything.

Like Tim Bauwens for the A123 testing. (and yes, I made sure I was permitted the use of Tims name here)

Leo, this is precisely the reason we approve documents before releasing them and publish them on the FRA website. This ensures that the final version contains no errors or information that should not be made public. Most of the items in the agenda were discussed at the AGM and regional reps are always happy to discuss anything with roboteers.

Kane Aston, still my question is, how can you ,as a rep approve a document if your electors cant give their view?
Guessing wont do Im afraid

Kane, i am not talking about the minutes, because as a former boardmember of several associations i am well aware of the need of their approval. But you dont need a meeting to approve publication of a agenda for a meeting. that is simply the job of the secretary.

Folks, Issues like the above are always more likely to be misunderstandings than conspiracy. While it is true that the membership was not formally consulted about the agenda, I think that our reps are likely to know where we stand. Mine does. I trust that next time a full agenda will be posted on this forum in advance and I think that, thanks to Dave, we are all aware of the issues before tomorrows meeting.
I trust our representatives to do their best for our sport. We need to support them so that our sport survives and grows.

Which still brings me to my post earlier in the week, our rep cant make it, who do i turn to?

Leo if your rep (in this case Marco?) then any issues you want him to raise should be passed on to the committe via email, letter etc from the rep.

Mario, this is what the forum and meetings like the AGM are for.

Leo, we have not publicised the agenda previously and I dont personnally believe there was reason to publicise this agenda either. It was an internal document so that those attending the meeting knew what was what. I am pretty sure that in future we will be publishing the agenda as it seems quite clear that that is what many want.

What many want is clarity, communication.

Look, my 2 cents on this matter:

When something is published that shouldnt, and is rectified, and then the publisher gets threatened anyway, that is a problem. Of course I dont know all of it, but that is what a forum is for... c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n. That sort of tends to seems to be able to maybe clear things up. A forum is a meeting place, a spot where people gather and talk. Sometimes the talk isnt nice, but that is just the way people are.

And when people feel attacked by comments on a forum they should defend themselves with comments in return, not with legal action. Maybe its my Dutch heritage, but it does help to talk about stuff in order to get it sorted out to satisfaction.

And that is what bothers me, personally, about this affair.

Actually the legal mumbojumbo was a completely seperate matter to the publishing of documents.

And then of course there is talking and arguing... normally arguements get no where. Thats why we do things like get together and talk.

im sorry to say this but what i hate about this place is that their are people who think they know it all who once given any slight power start throwing their weight around to suit themselves and turn anything they dont like around, everything is supposed to be done for the future of the sport when any things change or decisions are made it is done to suit certain little groups. i have been on loads of forums from car enthusiast clubs etc..... and to me this compared is a bit of a farce, the arguements, backstabbing and so on you will always get (fair enough) but this is getting ridiculous. its only due to my passion for the hobby why i still come on here, this is a public forum and i am voicing my opinion from someone who cares and can clearly see that i feel is a sport on a downward spiral with all these new rule proposals and so on, if these things were for the good of the sport then why is their so many annoyed people and arguements going on. if you need any examples just read through posts from the last couple of months.

im saying this cos i care and not to bring anything into dispute.

just take 5 and think about a newbee who has just joined the forum wanting to get into robots, and reading into these posts over the last few weeks, i think its enough to scare them off.

if you want to secure the future of the sport i thing their are more things to prioritize such as helping organizers run more spinner events, or making certain big events more special cos im sorry i dont care what anyone says the majority of crowds like seeing spinners, if you need an example watch any recent videos with a spinner and listen to the crowd,

my next one is crack down on robots being overweight, cos im sorry but i know of overweight robots and in the past i have heard it get laughed off at the scales, when it has been overweight, ive been their and heard it with my own ears so i dont expect emails or pms saying who,what,why,when i have stood their and heard it myself. im not saying it always happens except i have heard it in the past.

next- lets gets these events that are filmed for dvd etc promoted more, help the organizers. i dont have the answers but their are still alot that think the sport stopped when the show ended.

finally, as i said this is my opinion im sure this will now start a big new arguement but hey, its what i have come to expect.

also i have no idea whats gone on, but im guessing something was posted that shouldnt have been made public, im sure this person wasnt doing it out of spite, but if anyone is to blame it is the fra for not making it strictly clear... but this is only if thats what has happened.

(Message edited by ady on October 12, 2007)

Oh look its nearly the 13th soon the FRA executive will have the meeting I€™m sure the members of the executive committee will report to the FRA membership all the points discussed and agreed.
We then can discuss the decisions made by the executive in a mature and sensible way.
Some comments on the other issues: -
Mistakes have been made on all sides in this argument, lets all be big enough to acknowledge this.
With regard to the other forum I hope the misunderstanding regarding the legal status will be sorted and the other forum can start again with due regard for the law or whatever the problem was.
With regard to the weight issue I don€™t want to repeat myself so I will just say universal rules in the long term benefit everyone. On the over weight issue I agree with Adrian that 100 Kg is the max for heavies (+/ - 2%) sorry a rule is a rule, excluding gas naturally!!!!!!!!
But lastly I must stress again, please EVERY ONE TRY TO KEEP CALM.

Well Im a newbie, and it all seems a bit odd. Were all so friendly (admittedly a smaller group) on http://www.robotwars101.org/phpBB/http://www.robotwars101.org/phpBB/ that its a bit of a shock to hear about legal action being taken!!! Come one, just sort it out amongst yourselves, and (although this sounds like it might be a big jump for some) stop being so darned secretive about everything. Just post draft rules and stuff, if youre on the side of right then people will go with what youre trying to do. Treat people like adults, a lot of us here (not me admittedly) have important responsible jobs and are capable of being objective. And lastly (and in complete agreement with Craig) be calm.

Simon

Kane Aston, still my question is, how can you ,as a rep approve a document if your electors cant give their view?
Guessing wont do Im afraid

Kane ive been in your region uptil august, also im an original member of the FRA and you norr your predasesor have ever ask me as a memeber of you region what my opinion is, it is your job to find out the opinion of the people u represent, as it was my job to represent the views and opinions of the antweigths while i was Antweight FRA rep.

Mario, this is what the forum and meetings like the AGM are for.

Leo, we have not publicised the agenda previously and I dont personnally believe there was reason to publicise this agenda either. It was an internal document so that those attending the meeting knew what was what. I am pretty sure that in future we will be publishing the agenda as it seems quite clear that that is what many want.

Kane Aston. I agree that the forum and the meetings are meant to ironing out bugs, difficulties and problems with potential new rules.
Why all the fuss about the linked AGM 17 proposals?
There is absolutely nothing in them that couldnt be discussed and agreed upon. Why keeping this agenda hidden from the non rep members?

As I mentioned before. Tims application to test the A123s was a serious mistake, as he never applied for that. KOS did.... and he isnt mentioned. Those things could be ironed out in a open forum discussion.

But what we see now is the fact certain people are using legalese to justify their actions keeping the agenda from the members.

Problem is, once is a coincidence. Twice suspicious. Trice, fecal matter hitting an air displacement device.

My main issue. Compared to the old Mentorn Rules the FRA rules didnt change much, except wording.

Real changes over the years.

Battery technology. LiPo is limited to feathers. And the newer inherently safer Lithiumnanoferrophosphate is still, after 3 years of real life experience, in debate. Only certain people can test them.

Limited CO2 consumable. 2 KG of CO2 is Free.

With a new rule pending that even strips those 2 kg. Forgetting the fact that to store CO2 you need a very heavy tank, what cant be part of your robot. In effect disadvantaging CO2 users. When everybody else goes in @100 kg and comes out 100kg CO2 users are mandated to put in 3 to 10 kg of storage bottle , to come out at 98 to 94 kg.
The current rule is a useable middle path.

Hydraulics. Pressure was raised. The reasoning behind it modern hydraulics are build to withstand 4000 psi and better. (REMOVED BANNED WORD). Commercial hydraulics come in different flavors. Tailgate lifters operate normaly at 160-180 bar, with some dropping to 120 and someraise above 200. And yes, I can prove this. Im a goddamned certified taillifter expert of a certain brand.
Also, Enerpack brigdemoving lifters can achive pressures over 700 bar safely. Perfectly commercialy available.
A modern minidigger operates at 350 bar, with a 50 hp 4 cylinder diesel powering a swashplate plunger pump.(as what Razer used.)

Power Led. Wow, we have a possible means to see if a robot is powered.

(Message edited by maddox on October 13, 2007)

(Message edited by big_nipper on October 14, 2007)

For those who dont visit Facebook, the following is a posting of Dave Lang there. I hope people wont be angry about me doing so but I think its important.

Dave Lang (Plymouth) replied to Sams post on Oct 11, 2007 at 5:42 AM
Its not the FRA threatening, its a certain member of it. The documents weren,t copyrighted (there was no copyright message on them anywhere) but I was told that they were copyrighted but they were not marked as such (yeah, odd)

I was not told to keep them private but I was asked to remove the AGM minutes because they were not released (which I did straight away), and I also moved the agenda in to the backroom so that no public could see it (the backroom being another thing which this person hates)

I was also asked to remove the agenda, which i refused to do because I wanted the people in my area to be able to read and comment on them before the meeting.

Yesterday I was demanded to remove the agenda. I have no idea why. Theres nothing that bad in it, and its posting on the robotforum actually brought up some varied and interesting discussions on the FRA forum.

I was also threatened with legal action regarding some of the content of the postings. I did actually edit some of the postings to reomve any names but apparently this was not enough. I was told in no uncertain terms that if anything got put on the forum which this person found to be making them look bad then I personally would be sued for damages.

Its really p**sing me off so I decided to quit the FRA for good. Ive deleted my FRA account, closed the robotforum and resigned as rep for good. All this is because of one person. Its been making me ill. Ive had a headache for the past 2 days because of this as its causing me so much stress.

Message from Dave Lang:

In response to the posting from Andy Kane:

I believe that Dave may have taken the view that it was easier to close the site than to censor the written content, ie do the exact opposite of why the site was set up for in the first place

The reason I closed the robotforum site was because of the following quote I received in an e-mail from Andy Kane this week...

Quote:

To day I stopped an actual solicitors letter heading your way from one of our members (not me), but have only managed to delay it.

The member has asked me to relay a message to you and that is If ever the robot forum appears in an open working form on the internet again, the start of legal action against you will be automatic

This was the reason that the forum was taken offline and not because I do not want to sensor postings. Tonight I have put the robotforum back online and will keep an eye on any postings (as much as I can). Anyone using it will need to read the rules for the forum (a link from the main screen). If anyone has any problems with any of the postings then there is a report this posting button on the top of EVERY post. If you would like a posting removed, simply click the report this post button and an e-mail will be sent to all of the moderators then the posting can be dealt with swiftly and easily.

Note: The agenda has been removed from the robotforum as requested, and any postings amended/deleted.

Reporting of posts is the same on the robotforum as on most forums on the internet.

Regards

Dave Lang
PS: Apologies from having to post from Debbies account. I have deleted my FRA account in protest to the treatment I have received over the robotforum.